Judge Susan Weaver Transfers Trust Property from Unrepresented Trust, Again
She did this before in the Gawenis case.
This is not legal advice. I am not an attorney. I am the victim of a corrupt judge.
Judge Weaver allowed a convicted felon to commit perjury in front of her, knowing the convicted felon had obtained property from me by fraud. She made threatening comments to me that if I tried to give testimony contradicting the fraudster, I would be committing a crime, the unauthorized practice of law.
Based on only the fraudster’s testimony and the testimony and arguments made by his attorney, William Zac White, Judge Weaver transferred title from a trust to which I was a beneficiary to the fraudster and then to a special needs trust for the fraudster.
This is the order Judge Weaver wrote, with my commentary bold and underlined. (You can download the court copy below.)
In general, I suggest that you do not buy real estate in Arkansas or bring any assets to the state. The judiciary is inbred and hell-bent on transferring “outsiders” wealth to themselves and their attorney supporters. The “good” attorneys are not willing to take cases where they know the judge has a predetermined outcome, for fear of losing all their cases. More than one attorney told me this.
If there is one brave attorney in Arkansas, I hope he or she takes this matter on contingency.
************************************************
This matter came before the Court on March 17, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. within the Searcy
County Circuit Courthouse located in Marshall, Arkansas. Micheal Pietrczak (hereafter referred
to as “Pietrczak”) appeared in person with his attorney, William Z. White. Laura Lynn Hammett
(hereafter referred to as “Hammett”) appeared in her individual pro-se capacity. The Rural
Revival Trust was not present (though the trustee, Laura Lynn Hammett was present), and no attorney appeared on its behalf. I told Judge Weaver that no attorney would take the case because of her appearance of bias. She said that claim was “unfounded” and went on to hold kangaroo court. Based upon the pleadings filed of record herein, statements of counsel, parties (except that Laura Lynn Hammett as an individual was not permitted to argue, testify or cross-examine the plaintiff), and/or witness(es), and all other matters before the Court, the Court finds as follows:
- This Court granted Pietrczak’s Motion for Default Judgment on March 2, 2022,
against the Rural Reviving Living Trust. The Court found that:
a. Service was perfected, in the presence of the court, upon the Rural Revival
Living Trust on October 7, 2021 after a Motion Hearing in the above case was
held. (The affidavit of summons said that Chief Deputy Sheriff Ezra Pierce served summons on October 12, 2021. But, so far, that misstatement has not been used to support some other lie.)
b. Pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 55(a), when a party against whom a judgment for
affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided
by the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, judgement by default may be
entered. “May” not “should” or “must”. Judge Weaver had already read my counterclaim and the letter written by Pietrczak that explains how he would use money he defrauded from me to pay Willy White to sue me and the trust for six times what I agreed to pay, plus attorney fees.
c. The Rural Revival Living Trust failed to plead or otherwise appear in this
action and therefore defaulted. - The Court ordered that a damages hearing be held on March 17, 2022. The
purpose of the hearing was specifically limited to the Pietrzcak’s presentation of damages
against the Rural Revival Living Trust. How convenient. - During the hearing, Hammett attempted to make objections and statements in
response to Plaintiff’s presentation of statements to the court, admission of exhibits, and/or
witness testimony. The Court, several times, explained to Hammett that she is not a licenses (sic)
attorney and could not make statements or arguments on behalf of the Rural Revival Living
Trust. I told Judge Weaver I wanted to make statements in protection of my own individual rights, and she refused to allow me to speak. Later you will see that she made findings against me as an individual, even after dismissing me on the merits. - Hammett prepared a purported “Marriage Contract” (attached as exhibit 3 to
Pietrczak’s Complaint). The contract was prepared and signed by Pietrczak and Hammett, jointly. On October 14, 2021, based upon Hammett’s announced agreement and
consent the Court found that the contract was void ab initio and deemed to have no legal effect as
if it never existed. There was no hearing on October 14, 2021. There was a hearing on October 7, 2021. At that hearing, I said that the “marriage contract” was not meant to be a legal state endorsed marriage. We specifically wrote “married in the eyes of God”. By the contract, I agreed to split our combined assets 50/50, even though all the assets were rightly mine. But, since Pietrczak wanted to litigate, I would agree to voiding the agreement and recovering all the money Pietrczak defrauded from me, which was hundreds of thousands of dollars more than was used to purchase the Lick Fork property. - Hammett prepared an Affidavit (attached as Exhibit 4 to Pietrczak’s Complaint)
and filed it of record with the Searcy County Clerk on March 13, 2015, at 3:35 p.m. with BK:
MISC 175; PG: 150-151. The Affidavit claims Hammett is entitled to possession of 9985 Lick
Fork Road, Witts Springs, Arkansas (hereafter referred to as “Lick Fork Property”), along with
the owner of title, Micheal Pietrczak. Further, Hammett gives “actual notice to the world that
my possession is as a 50% undivided interest…”. Hammett’s purported claims to the Lick Fork
Property were based upon the purported “Marriage Contract’ discussed in the preceding
paragraph and are therefore deemed to have no legal effect as if it never existed. Judge Weaver refused to let me argue, testify or cross-examine Pietrczak about this issue. The Affidavit I filed was based on what the Court dubbed the “marriage contract”. That contract was only one of many times Pietrczak agreed to split our combined property 50/50 if we broke up. - On or about March 22, 2016, Hammett prepared a Mortgage Agreement (attached
as Exhibit 5 to Pietrczak’s Complaint) on behalf of the Rural Revival Living Trust guarantying
the repayment of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND 00/100
($150,000.00) from the Rural Revival Living Trust to Pietrczak. Judge Weaver would not let me speak about this document on March 17, 2022. But she allowed me to speak about it on October 7, 2021. I said and wrote in filed documents that the mortgage was a form found online and Pietrczak told me what to write in the blanks. I was merely the scribe who filled in blanks in a mortgage. - The Mortgage Agreement was filed of record with the Searcy County Clerk on
March 23, 2016, at 11:30 a.m. within Book: MORT 203; PG: 427-436. On March 22, 2016, the
purported Mortgage Agreement was only executed by Hammett, not a licensed attorney, as the
trustee of the Rural Revival Living Trust rendering the Mortgage Agreement invalid. Therefore,
the Mortgage Agreement is void ab initio and deemed to have no legal effect as if it never
existed. I agree. The Mortgage Agreement was void ab initio. So, why is Judge Weaver giving Pietrczak an award based on a void mortgage? (Hint: She wants to.) - On or about March 22, 2016, Hammett prepared a Warranty Deed (attached as
Exhibit 6 to Pietrczak’s Complaint) on behalf of the Rural Revival Living Trust purportedly
transferring the Lick Fork Property from Pietrczak to the Rural Revival Living Trust. Again, Pietrczak told me what to write. My spelling is far superior to his, and I was his secretary often during our six years together. Only Pietrczak signed the deed. There was no space on the form we copied for the transferee to sign. Putting title into a trust was Pietrczak’s demand, and one of his cohorts wrote that I “slipped up” when I agreed to let Pietrczak deed to a trust instead of me as an individual. - The Warranty Deed was filed of record with the Searcy County Clerk on March
23, 2016, at 11:13 a.m. within Book: Deed 200; PG: 606-609. Hammett is not a licensed
attorney. Therefore, the Warranty Deed is void ab initio and deemed to have no legal effect as if
it never existed. Pietrczak is the only person who signed the warranty deed. It was prepared under his direction. Judge Weaver should not call it void ab initio. - The Rural Revival Living Trust knew or should have known that Hammett is not
a licensed attorney and that she is prevented from preparing legal documents on behalf of
Pietrczak and/or the Rural Revival Living Trust. So, Judge Weaver finds that the Rural Revival Living Trust cannot represent itself, because it is not an attorney, but that the Rural Revival Living Trust should know an obscure interpretation of the law that forbids a non-attorney to represent another entity. The interpretation applies the law to the trustee of a trust. Several attorneys I spoke with did not know this interpretation of the law. Pietrczak demanded the property that should have been put in Hammett’s name as an individual be put into a trust. - The Rural Revival Living Trust slandered the title of Pietrczak’s Lick Fork
Property by intentionally acting with malice, express or implied, in making slanderous
statements regarding the title of Pietrczak’s Lick Fork Property. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-
37-226(a) anyone who suffers loss or damages as a result of conduct the prohibited conduct and
who must bring civil action to remove any cloud from his or her title or interest in the real
property or to clear his or her title or interest in the real property is entitled to three (3) times
actual damages, punitive damages, and costs, including any reasonable attorney’s fees or other
costs of litigation reasonably incurred. See Ark. Code Ann. §5-37-226(c). Payday for Willy White and his helpers. Of course Judge Weaver ignored the email I presented as an exhibit on August 2, 2021 that said I was willing to pay off the entire mortgage for the trust, if half the money, which was “a tithe”, went into a special needs trust for Pietrczak. I was not speaking on behalf of the trust, but I am the trustee of the trust, so it is unfair to call the trust “malicious”. - Due to Rural Revival Living Trust’s slandering of Pietrczak’s title, Pietrczak has
been unable to enjoy the Lick Fork Property freely and quietly, and likewise, has been unable to
otherwise sell or lease the Lick Fork Property to others. - The Rural Revival Living Trust filed the unauthentic and fraudulent, Mortgage
Agreement and Warranty Deed into the records of the Searcy County Recorder with Pietrczak standing there, and who signed the documents in front of a notary who remembers Pietrczak was sober and had no gun to his head to cloud Pietrczak’s title to the Lick Fork Property and to adversely affect, impair, or discredit the title of Pietrczak’s interest in the Lick Fork Property. This has prevented Pietrczak from disposing, transferring, or granting any interest of the Lick Fork Property to anyone. - The purported “Marriage Contract”, Affidavit of Laura Lynn, Mortgage
Agreement, and Warranty Deed described further herein are canceled, held null, and void and of
no legal effect as if they had never existed. The affidavit does not mention the trust. The trust did not exist at the time. So, Judge Weaver denied my individual right to present evidence in my favor on March 17, 2022, dismissed me on the merits on March 28, 2022, then found against me as an individual on April 7, 2022. - Any and all clouds on the title of Pietrczak’s Lick Fork Property is removed. Again, Judge Weaver over reaches. She said the hearing of March 17, 2022 was only on the trust issues, and did not let the non-defaulting defendant testify or have a jury. “Any and all” clouds on title includes my personal rights to the property.
- The Court renders judgment in Pietrczak’s favor and grants recovery of the
possession of the Lick Fork Property and grants the recovery of the costs incurred by Pietrczak
for the necessitation of this action as set forth within Ark. Code Ann. §18-60-207, 209. - The Court shall issue a Writ of Possession commanding the officer to whom it is
directed to deliver to Pietrczak or his agent possession of the Lick Fork Property pursuant to Ark.
Code Ann. §18-60-208. - At the conclusion of this matter Pietrczak may petition and be awarded his costs
pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-68-401 including the treble damages provisions of Ark. Code
Ann. § 16-60-102. - The Rural Revival Living Trust entered upon and/or unlawfully detained
Pietrczak’s Lick Fork Property without right or claim to title. See Ark. Code Ann. § 18-60-
303(1). - The Rural Revival Living Trust forcibly entered the premises and caused the
locks of Pietrczak’s residence located on the Lick Fork Property to be changed to prevent
Pietrczak or the attorney-in-fact from gaining access to Pietrczak’s Lick Fork Real Property.
See. Ark. Code Ann. § 18-60-303(2). - This Court shall issue a Writ of Possession pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 18-60-
309. - This Court hereby declares that Pietrczak is the true and rightful owner of the
Lick Fork Property pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 57 and Ark. Code Ann. § 16-111-101 et seq. - This Court permanently enjoins the Rule Reviving Living Trust from further
slandering, clouding, and entering upon Pietrczak’s Lick Fork Property pursuant to Ark. R. Civ.
P. 65. - Pietrczak may be awarded actual monetary damages, upon a proper motion and
hearing, against the Rural Revival Living Trust for the costs of replacing and repairing the
property to its former condition, when Pietrczak last possessed it, once he has been allowed to
inventory, apprise the damages, and file a verified damages report with this Court. - Michael Pietrczak is the true and rightful owner of the property located in Searcy,
County, Arkansas that has been the subject of this matter and who’s legal description is as
follows: - The cloud on the title of Pietrczak’s Lick Fork Property is removed and is not
subject to any lien, mortgage, other encumbrances. Judge Weaver is not allowed to remove liens and other encumbrances that belong to me as an individual without a case filed, summons served and any further action against me would be res judicata because I was already dismissed with prejudice. - The Court Orders title to the Lick Fork Property be placed into the Micheal A.
Pietrczak Special Needs Trust as previously considered and ruled upon by the Court. If
necessary, the Court will issue the appropriate conveyance documents (if necessary) to effectuate
the transfer.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HONORABLE SUSAN WEAVER
Judge Weaver stamped the order but did not date it. It was filed on April 7, 2022
Only a licensed attorney can represent a trust. But we each have the right to express ourselves regarding the decisions judges and juries make. Do you think OJ was guilty? Do you think Kyle Rittenhouse was innocent? The whole country expresses its opinions on legal issues, even though some of the people are not licensed attorneys.
Do you think Judge Weaver conspired with William Zac White to transfer property from a trust to a man who committed fraud on the beneficiary of that trust? If you do, please contact the JDDC and let them know you lost trust in the integrity of our legal system. If you are an attorney and want to represent the trust on appeal, contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com. You can take the maximum contingency fee allowed from the trust case and any case you advocate on my individual behalf for malicious prosecution and fraud against any of the actors.
Judge Susan Weaver of Arkansas Gives Oral Order for Huge Payout to Fraudster
When I was 47, I hooked up with a broke 38-year-old who was freshly released from prison where he had served a year for using a fake identification at the US – Mexico border while driving a stolen vehicle.
He was a good-looking younger man. But I honestly fell in love with him based on his words and his actions. He acted like a Boy Scout. I had an inkling that the story he was telling me about his past was not true. And it wasn’t.
My instincts were right, but I erred in the wrong direction. I thought Micheal Pietrczak might have worked undercover and was in prison to infiltrate the criminal population. Really, he was a fraudster, living the cliche of convincing an older Christian woman that he was equally “in love”.
Unfortunately, Pietrczak was a raging alcoholic, in recovery when we met. He lost his sobriety after a couple years together. Then he made my life miserable.
My faith led me to stay with the alcoholic for about four more years, doing all in my power to support his recovery.
Finally, when Pietrczak was openly engaging in sex with prostitutes, using my money, I left him.
I was willing to give him half the assets we accumulated, using hundreds of thousands of dollars of my money and both our labor. I was even willing to give him $75,000 extra if it went into a trust that was not controlled by his father.
Here are two emails I sent to Micheal Pietrczak’s first attorney, Billy Jack Gibson, who is now a judge.
That was not enough for Mike Pietrczak, his father Walter and their attorney William White of Heber Springs. They conspired to accept my payments under the pretense that Pietrczak was grateful, all the while knowing they were going to sue me for three times the amount. Here is one signed letter planning the fraud.
I wrote a counterclaim to the lawsuit William Z. White filed but did not serve on me. (I found the complaint on my own, while doing other research.)
Judge Weaver dismissed my counterclaim. There was no motion to dismiss. In fact, there was no answer at all to the counterclaim. I had filed for default judgment, which Judge Weaver denied. Instead, she gave a general reason, that she noticed the counterclaim did not comply with Rule 8, and dismissed it.
The conspirators named “Rural Revival Living Trust” as a defendant as well. I am trustee of the trust.
Trusts must be represented by attorneys. So far, I have not found an attorney brave enough to go up against Judge Weaver, who appears to have a bias against me. (The trust was going to pay $300 per hour to its attorney, but now is willing to hire an attorney on contingency only.)
Even though Judge Weaver saw the same evidence posted above, she held a kangaroo court on March 17, 2022, in which she forbid me from advocating for my own interests, presenting more evidence of the Pietrczak fraud, or object to things like Mr. White leading the witness. I was forced to watch Judge Weaver, Mr. White, and Mr. Pietrczak lie about me, Laura Lynn Hammett, without rebutting a word.
This judge, the same woman who dismissed my counterclaim sua sponte, meaning on her own without notice, did not put the trustee of the trust on the witness stand and try to reach the truth of the matter. Though she did ask the plaintiff questions, such as how much the property worth is, without challenging his answers.
Judge Weaver gave a convicted felon carte blanche to take all the assets in the trust, which was title to a 40-acre parcel and cabin. The conspirators claimed the value of the property was about $150,000 in court. Mr. White wrote an email two days later saying the bidding on the property will start at $350,000.
A written order has not been signed yet.
Attorney William White wrote a proposed order in which the Court “finds” that Laura Lynn Hammett committed the unauthorized practice of law. That is a crime, and Judge Weaver specifically said she was not charging me with the crime during the March hearing. I certainly was not given an opportunity to defend against the false claim.
Mr. White also wrote that the “Rural Revival Living Trust knew or should have known that Hammett is not a licensed attorney and that she is prevented from preparing legal documents on behalf of Pietrczak and/or the Rural Revival Living Trust.”
So, White claims that I could not represent the trust on legal issues but should have known and made a legal decision for the trust that it was illegal to represent the trust on legal issues.
As an afterthought, the fraudsters asked the judge to approve a trust be formed for Michael Pietrczak’s benefit, and to transfer the assets he defrauded from me as an individual into the new trust. This looks to me like, if Judge Susan Weaver puts her stamp of approval on the proposed order, I will become the victim of a fraudulent transfer that is ordered by a judge who knows the transfer is fraudulent.
Is this what We the People want for the State of Arkansas, a “Red State”, a predominantly Christian state? That we have judges who proclaim “Praise Jesus” in public posts, then transfer old ladies’ trust property by default to an admitted fraudster?
Judge Susan Weaver Accused of Denying Mother an Opportunity to be Heard
This motion was filed in a family law case. A download from Court Connect is posted following the article, along with a download of the response.
Judge Weaver denied the motion indirectly. The denial was buried within an order denying a motion to quash a subpoena for the deposition of the mother.
The case went to a final hearing and is now closed, with full custody to the father and the mother given visitation with her alleged abuser or his family supervising in his house. The mother complained that the father denies her phone access to the children.
The mother believes Judge Susan Weaver in Faulkner County Circuit Court formed a bias against the mother and ignored all evidence in the mother’s favor throughout the proceedings.
*******************
MOTION TO SET ASIDE DECEMBER 19, 2019 ORDER AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
Comes now the Defendant, Justine Simpson, by and through her attorney, Jennifer E.
Glover, and for her Motion states as follows:
- According to the docket entries contained on Court Connect, Plaintiff filed a
Complaint for Divorce and a Motion for Emergency Custody and Order Requiring the Children
to be Returned to the State of Arkansas on November 26, 2019. - According to the docket entries contained on Court Connect, on or about December 2,
2019 a hearing was scheduled in this matter for December 19, 2019. - According to the docket entries contained on Court Connect, a Notice of Hearing was
filed in this matter on December 2, 2019. - According to the docket entries contained on Court Connect, an Order was entered in
this matter on December 19, 2019 wherein Plaintiff was awarded custody of the parties’ children
and Defendant was ordered to return them to his custody in the State of Arkansas. - At no time has Defendant been served with a Notice of Hearing notifying her of the
December 19, 2019 hearing. At no time has Defendant been served with any pleadings filed in
this matter. - Plaintiff filed an Affidavit of Non Service on December 3, 2019 wherein it was
alleged that service was attempted at an address in Indiana, the home of the Defendant’s father.
However, Defendant’s father informed the server that Defendant did not reside at the location.
The Affidavit makes no claims that papers were left with Defendant’s father. - Plaintiff has since filed an Affidavit in support of Warning Order which indicates that
Defendant resides at an address completely different than the one listed in the Affidavit of Non
Service. - Ark. R. Civ. P. 6 (c) requires that a Notice of Hearing be served “not later than twenty
days before the time specified for the hearing.” - Defendant was never notified of the hearing set on December 19, 2019. Defendant
was not given an opportunity to appear and provide testimony in her own defense. The Court
took testimony only from Plaintiff and possibly his witnesses. Defendant was not afforded an
opportunity to object to any testimony given, review any evidence presented, cross examine any
witnesses, present any evidence on her own behalf, or present any case of her own. The Court
was not able to hear testimony from Defendant that Plaintiff was emotionally and verbally
abusive throughout the marriage and that this abuse occurred in front of the minor children. The
Court was unable to hear that Plaintiff brought Defendant to Arkansas, isolated her from her
family, left her with no vehicle, no access to money, and then perpetrated the abuse upon her.
The Court was unable to hear testimony regarding Plaintiffs ongoing, daily alcohol abuse. The
Court was unable to hear recordings of the Plaintiff screaming at Defendant in front of the minor
children. The Court was unable to see pictures of the doors Plaintiff kicked in at the marital
home. The Court was unable to hear testimony about Plaintiff’s lack of supervision of the minor
children. Instead, because Defendant was not afforded any notice of these proceedings or the
hearing, the Court was only able to hear Plaintiff’s version of events. - Defendant’s custodial rights are fundamental rights protected by both the federal and
state constitutions. Custody has been granted to Plaintiff without any notice to Defendant.
Furthermore, Defendant’s due process has been violated by holding a hearing without any notice
to her and without giving her any opportunity to counter allegations made by Plaintiff and to
present her own case. The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard
at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Villanueva v. Valdivia, 2016 Ark. App. 107, 4,
483 S.W.3d 308, 310–11 (2016). - Defendant respectfully requests that this Court set aside the Order entered on
December 19, 2019 as she was not provided notice as required by Ark. R. Civ. P. 6 and as her
due process rights were violated in holding a hearing with no notice to Defendant wherein she
was afforded no right to present a defense or present her own case before her custodial rights
were taken away.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Justine Simpson, prays that this Court set aside the Order
entered on December 19, 2019; for attorney’s fees and costs; and for all other relief to which she
is entitled.
Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ Jennifer E. Glover
Jennifer E. Glover, 2015126
Natural State Law, PLLC
900 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 705
Little Rock, AR 72211
(501) 891-6976-office
(855) 415-8951-facsimile
Jennifer.Glover@NatStateLaw.com
**************************************************
Comes now Plaintiff, Benjamin Simpson, by and through his attorney, Victor D. “Trey”
Wright, III, and for his Response to Motion to Set Aside December 19, 2019 Order, does state as
follows:
- All actions by this Court in this matter were correct and necessary under the law.
- Defendant Justine Simpson has willfully evaded service and has willfully removed
the children from the jurisdiction of the Court, and has continued to defy a court order for a period
of two months. - Defendant Justine Simpson, through the actions of her father and through her own
actions, should not be allowed to have an order set aside due to her inaction and her refusal to
engage in the legal process.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays the motion of the Defendant be dismissed and denied, for
his costs and fees and all other relief to which he is entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Victor D. “Trey” Wright III
Victor D. “Trey” Wright, III
Wright Law Firm
111 Center Street, Suite 1200
Little Rock, AR
***********************************
This writer believes children should have access to both parents. It looks like both mother and father in this case were uncooperative with the other parent.
King Solomon thought it was preferable to leave a child with the person who wanted to keep a child whole. But that was literal, not figurative.
In this time of cell phones, Facetime, Zoom and Skype, there should always be communication between both parents and the children, barring a solid report by a professional that communication with one parent would cause psychological damage to the kids.
The mother in this case sounded rational and sober to this writer. Child protective services was not involved in the decision to separate her from her children.
The mother is unwilling to locate back to Arkansas. This writer would normally think that would be a good reason to give the father primary physical custody. But it does not show cause why the mother should have all contact with her children denied. The mother complained that the father was denying phone access. Judge Weaver turned a deaf ear toward the mother.
There are two problems with Judge Weaver that cause this writer to believe the mother might have had good reason to leave Arkansas.
Judge Susan Weaver does deny due process to litigants. She denied my right to due process. And she ignores evidence that is presented, often striking the exhibits due to an unnamed technical issue. Law is not supposed to be a game where the one who does not have a law degree loses. The number one rule of law, literally, is to apply the rules of civil procedure to “secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.”
Judge Weaver does not give all litigants an opportunity to present evidence and other rights under due process. This makes it difficult to trust the integrity of the Court.
Judge Weaver was quoted as saying that 100% of the time 50% of litigants are mad about the outcome.
Even good judges and attorneys say similar things, such as the best outcomes in court leave everyone disappointed.
Unfortunately, that gives bad judges an excuse for their questionable decisions. “The loser was a disgruntled litigant.”
It is important for a judge to give all litigants an opportunity to be heard and always make an accurate record that shows the reason behind her decisions.
Judge Weaver does not.
The second problem with Judge Weaver that makes the mother’s refusal to return to Arkansas understandable is something this writer has experienced herself.
Judge Weaver’s vindictiveness is frightening. The woman has absolute power and is absolutely corrupted. As soon as I can manage it financially, I will move from Arkansas. I love the state, except the courts. I know that a judicial officer is trying to impermissibly seize my property. Stopping her takes all my time and causes severe emotional distress. Judge Weaver even commanded me to drive three hours for a hearing after I told her I was ill, vomited and provided my blood test showing impaired immunity. Then, when I showed up fully prepared, the judge refused to let me present evidence that the other party was lying about me as an individual.
It is easy to understand the mother’s fear that she will be persecuted by Judge Weaver if she returns. It is easy to understand that the mother fears she will have no protection from the man she claims is an alcoholic and abuser.
And the Winner of the Award for Dumbest Attorney Ever Goes To…
William “Zac” White of Heber Springs Arkansas.
Mr. White rarely wins a case. Unless Judge Susan Weaver is presiding, and no summons is served on the defendant.
It seems that was the plan to transfer ownership of 40 acres and a house in Witts Spring, Arkansas to one of White’s clients, a convicted felon, Micheal “Mike” Pietrczak.
Unfortunately for Mr. White, he named this writer as a defendant. I found the case against me on Court Connect and began to vindicate myself, pro se.
My defense was far superior to the advocacy by the licensed attorney. The Judge, Susan Weaver, seemed to favor Mr. White to a degree that I consider unethical. Still, I had Mr. White on the ropes.
So, he hatched a scheme. He had named a second defendant, a trust. No attorney who saw the crazy rulings prior would take the case for the trust. If I represented the trust, I would be found to have committed the unauthorized practice of law, a misdemeanor that might subject me to a year in jail.
After I found indisputable evidence that Mike Pietrczak had committed fraud on me (posted below), Mr. White dismissed me with prejudice. He thought, and it seems like Judge Weaver agreed, that I could no longer make arguments or submit evidence in the case. (That is probably not true, as dismissed defendants often file motions, such as a motion for attorney fees.)
Judge Weaver and Mr. White went on to find against the trust on all claims and gave Mr. White a blank check to file for damages. I was not allowed to say one word about the facts of the case, even though I was ordered to attend the hearing and I am the trustee of the trust.
Then Mr. White wrote a proposed order in which the Court “finds” that I committed crimes and did all the things I was accused of in the complaint, things for which I was dismissed with prejudice.
Mr. White musta thunk he was pulling a fast one. He did not think that once a joint non-defaulting defendant is dismissed with prejudice, the defaulting defendant must also be dismissed.
In other words, I think the court must go through the complaint and strike out any sentence that says the trust and I did anything. The court already decided I did not do those things. “And” means both. So, the sentence is no longer true.
I’ll let y’all know if Judge Weaver weasles out of her signed dismissal with prejudice and if she finds me guilty of a bunch of charges with literally no opportunity to defend myself.
A Higher Law 